On Saturday 09 June 2007 10:42 am, Tomasz Sterna wrote: > Dnia 09-06-2007, sob o godzinie 09:36 -0700, Justin Karneges napisał(a): > > Wouldn't it be enough to just use a good, distributed XMPP server > > deployment, > > that also supports distributed MUC internally? Additionally, > > distribution is > > a hot topic, and everyone has different internal approaches > > (including > > special wire protocols between nodes). Just read any blog about > > ejabberd. > > That would enforce ejabberd on every deployment that wants to join the > distributed MUC environment. > > I'm afraid that would make very unhappy the ones that don't think > ejabberd is the best thing right after the bread and butter...
I was referring to an internally distributed MUC owned by a single entity. Nobody would "join" the distributed MUC environment. The owner of the MUC could deploy more nodes, but that's all. In this case, a proprietary clustering protocol is perfectly acceptable (whether ejabberd or not, it was just an example). -Justin
